[UK-CONTEST] UBN failures

[Rob Harrison]

Hi,

Hi,

It's a sad day when the signal report has to be abandoned to enable 
meaningful exchanges. By convention, the callsign and report is the basis of 
all valid QSO's.

Another victim of the "it can't be policed, so let's do it" brigade. Heaven 
help us in 10 years time.

Yes Rob keeps us on our toes :0))

Bob G8HGN


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David G3YYD" <g3yyd at btinternet.com>
To: <UK-Contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2011 2:06 PM
Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] UBN failures


>
> I see my 59 for all QSOs provoke the expected knee jerk re-action from
> some contesters. The HF contesters worked out long ago that the rules do
> not specify that the report has to be accurate. Even if the rules did,
> how is it enforceable? QED give 59 saves typing at both ends and hence
> removes a possibility of error in that part of the exchange.
>
> Personally I think the RS(T) report should be removed from contests and
> some do just that. It is the serial number and locator code that is the
> real exchange in a VHF+ contest. Even the locator code can come from a
> call history file so that leaves the serial number as being the really
> unique part of the exchange.
>
> 73 David G3YYD
>
> PS just seen Stewart's post in similar vain.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> UK-Contest mailing list
> UK-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
>